Text 20563, 76 rader
Skriven 2008-09-10 11:19:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 20558 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Policy as a set of guidelines
=====================================
Hello Janis,

On Tuesday September 09 2008 18:23, you wrote to me:

 JK> We don't require phone lines here because it is an added expence.

An added expence. How inconvenient.....

 JK> Therefore, fts-001 may or may not be applicable.

FTS-0001 *is* applicable. You just decided not to enforce it because it is
inconvenient.

This particular subthread started because some (e.g. David D.) claimed that:

 DD> Policy for is not a set of strict rules to be "adhered to" verbatim.
 DD> It is a set of guidelines to be interpreted as need arrives

Whereupon Jeff Smith replied:

 JS> That is how you choose to look at it David. I imagine you choose
 JS> to look at it that way so you are not limited by policy unless you
 JS> choose to be or unless it's convenient. I remember one of the
 JS> conditions of joining Fidonet was to acknowledge the reading and
 JS> understanding of and the agreement to abide by Policy4.

 JS> It's a policy that we have agreed to abide by. P4 isn't and wasn't
 JS> just a set of suggestions for members of Fidonet to optionally
 JS> consider should they choose to.

Mind you I am not taking sides in *that* debate. I am merely observing that
some do not practise what they preach. They say that policy is not a set of
guidelines that one can choose only to follow when convenient. Yet that is
precisely what is happening in R14 (and other parts of the world) when it comes
to adhering to the requirement of maintaining an FTS-0001 compatible mailer
during ZMH and regarding what should be done when a net can not find a
replacement for a parting NC.

 JK> We don't ignore it.

You do not enforce the parts that are no longer convenient.

 JK> We use other methods to eventually come around to the same end, which
 JK> is connectivity.

Very well. Then be honest about it and say that you do not treat policy as law,
but merely as a set of guidelines.

 >> a coordinator who on the hand hand claims that policy should
 >> strictly be followed, not subject to whether it is convenient or not
 >> and who on the other hand allows violations like the above, is not
 >> practising what he/she preaches. Jeff Smith in one of thoes.

 JK> I didn't see Jeff doing that.  Perhaps he did, but I didn't see it.

I did. And that is why my question was directed at him, not at you. if you come
to the defence of someone, you had better read what he/she writes.

 JK> As far as Zone 1 goes, you have no idea how we do things it seems.

That is your standard answer when cornered: "you have no idea how we do things
here in Z1".

Well, you are wrong. I have a very good idea. You treat P4 like a set of
guidelines not as law that is to be followed no matter what. You choose to not
enforce the parts that are inconvenient. Z1 is no different from other zones in
that respect.

Perhaps you should let Jeff speak for himself instead of painting yourself into
a corner when coming to his defence.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)